Educrats and Public Schools are Useless: Revelations from The New York Post

One of the reasons I dislike government schools so much, especially now that I’ve had the opportunity to see how they function up close, is that they are turning our children into veal—mush minded, overly-compassionate- gray minded slugs. Government schools, otherwise known as “public schools” are advancing progressive politics and have become overly sensitive to political correctness and they’ve done it with money they’ve stolen from us in the form of property taxes. For a bizarre example of one fine case of just such a story check out this New York Post story from Yoav Gonen.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/out_of_the_question_YegJJGCOo33j0CQsccdZuL

I love Yoav’s use of the word “educrats,” which is entirely appropriate to these times of political correctness. The sum of the tragedy discussed in the New York Post article is that schools can no longer discuss in class references to religion, dinosaurs, Halloween, poverty, wealth, junk food, dancing, divorces, or diseases. There are of course many more terms that cannot be discussed in schools these days, but those are just some of the examples mentioned in the article. The emphasis in education now is to not offend anyone, to make it so everyone has a pleasant experience and that every child understands the merits of “social justice,” so that they will grow up to become nice little tree hugging hippies and slack-jawed patrons at their local sports bar.

When I was a child we spent our recesses pretending to shoot at each other with toy guns that we made out of combs, sticks or even pencils. These days, a child can’t even make the shape of a gun with their hand. Government schools are out-of-control with pretentiousness run by neurotic malcontents serving a clientele that is even worse. And between these adult groups of politically correct, progressive loving ambassadors are the poor children who spend their spare time playing games like Halo, and Call of Duty at home, but find their experience in the government schools to be stifling with overly sensitive politics. If schools can’t teach kids anything useful, then why do we send children to them? Why do we spend so much money on education institutions?

Government schools are functioning along the premise that accreditation has value in the future. The educrats believe that the world will need all the nurses, software engineers, lawyers and doctors that we have now. I even heard so much at a recent school board meeting in my neighborhood where the superintendent swore that the medical industry was where the future was, and that their school needed to fill those market needs. But—the world is changing. We have too many lawyers now. Some of the most brilliant software engineers are computer hackers who possess skills that schools don’t teach, and the future of medicine will not need more doctors and nurses. The future of medicine is in regenerative medicine. CLICK HERE TO SEE THE CURE FOR CANCER. The superintendent didn’t mention anything about the changing technology that will completely transform all these occupations. So what is all the education worth?

When I was in school I took computer classes learning how to program a very primitive Apple Computer. Within four years Bill Gates was mass marketing Microsoft Software that completely made useless everything I learned in two years of computer classes. That information is only good for a nostalgic understanding of how computers think, but it would do me no good for programming a modern computer. The same could be said of foreign language classes—who needs them? If we want kids to learn a foreign language why would we force children to take two years in high school when they could spend 6 months with Rosetta Stone Software and become proficient in another language in a quarter of the time? There are literally hundreds of similar examples of how education could be improved, yet we are continuing to waste the time of our youth because of some strange nostalgic affection with the past.

Government schools headed by “educrats” aren’t producing geniuses like Albert Einstein, or Thomas Edison. They are making activists like Bill Ayers and Barack Obama. They are breeding future union protestors and kids who spend their entire weekends drunk and clueless. That is what happens when educrats teach kids. The kids aren’t allowed to learn about anything because everything has become too political in the government schools, and nothing can be discussed out of sensitivity to “social justice.”

So why is society so hell-bent on a public education? Do parents just want baby-sitters for their children? Why do government schools run by unions want a monopoly on education—so they can drive up the costs? Because the kids coming out of public education aren’t exactly lighting up the world with new inventions and political genius. What is the appeal, because I see almost nothing that makes a government school essential to the life of a child?

Think about it. Why should society send children to a government school? What are the benefits? Because I don’t see any. I hear a lot of talk from schools who want money, and unions who want control about how valuable they are, but how can they be valuable when all they seem able to teach children is how to believe in global warming, and how to be an activist.

I would have gone insane in public school if I couldn’t pretend to shoot at my classmates in games of cowboys and Indians during recess. If not for the fun of running and hiding behind trees and playground props there may have been nothing positive to come out of public school for me. I can’t imagine being a kid now where they can’t even do that. Heck, they can’t even say “Indian,” they must now say, “Native American.”

Government schools have made themselves extinct. There is no modern use for them. The only real benefit they seem to have is as social institutions where kids interact with other kids. But as far as building up the intellect of students—I don’t see it—and I’ve been looking. The accreditation a child receives means almost nothing in a world that is changing so fast, that what is learned today will be out-of-fashion within a few years. It’s the core stuff that children need to learn—all the stuff mentioned in the New York Post article—that can no longer be discussed. And with that in mind, what’s the point of spending $10,000 per pupil of tax money on a system that doesn’t work? Because it makes us feel like we’re doing something? If so, where are the results? Where’s the proof? What is the reason to continue on in the same fashion without serious reform?

The real answers to education are outside of the government schools run by educrats. The sooner we decide to cast those progressive activists out of our lives, the sooner we can actually begin to solve some of our modern problems. And for me, I would start with introducing competition to the education process, so schools couldn’t play it safe by dumbing down their instruction to fit some “social justice” model that is unwanted, but would actually have to teach so that the customer—the parents—would want to keep their child in the school by choice, not by force. The answers are in choices, not more educrats, political correctness, and government schools. CLICK HERE FOR MORE EXAMPLES OF HOW EDUCATION SHOULD BE.

To understand the truth it helps to view the world through Hoffman Lenses.  To understand what those are CLICK THE LINK.  If you can’t handle the truth, then don’t read here.

http://overmanwarrior.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/socialists-live-hoffman-lenses-on-urban-meyer/

Rich Hoffman
http://overmanwarrior.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/ten-rules-to-live-by/
http://twitter.com/#!/overmanwarrior
www.overmanwarrior.com